Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41641 (PNJ)

VICKY v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/18087/2025 · 2025-05-21

Sanjay Vashisth

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-18087-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 CRM-M-18087-2025 Decided on:21.05.2025 VICKY …...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner . Mr. P.K. Jhanda, DAG, Haryana. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Vicky 0021 08.01.2025 115, 126, 310(2) and 311 of BNS(Sections 351(2) and 61(2) of BNS were later on added) Chandnibagh Panipat 2. On 03.04.2025, following order was passed:- “1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District Vicky, 0021 08.01.20 115, 126, Chandnibagh Panipat RASHMI 2025.05.21 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18087-2025 2 aged about 31 years 25 310(2), 311 of the BNS, 2023 (Sections 351(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 added later on) 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that even if it is assumed, based on the CCTV footage, that the petitioner was armed with gandasi, no witness has specifically attributed the act of causing injury to the petitioner. Additionally, it is argued that all the injuries sustained by the injured party are simple in nature. 3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner disputes his participation in the crime. However, he is ready to join the investigation as and when called by the investigating agency. Thus, prays for grant of concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present case. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On advance notice, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent – State, and submits that out of total nine accused, six have already been arrested. He further submits that, as of now, he has no material to suggest that the petitioner has specifically caused any injury with the gandasi, with which he is seen in the CCTV footage. However, he requests some time to file a status report in the matter. 6. Adjourned to 21.05.2025. 7. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on ad-interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 8. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in compliance of the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has duly joined the investigation and has extended full cooperation. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. In view of the petitioner’s cooperation and the nature of evidence involved, it is prayed that the interim protection RASHMI 2025.05.21 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18087-2025 3 granted earlier be confirmed and the petition for anticipatory bail be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel on instruction, confirms the factum of joining of investigation by the petitioner and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. However, it is submitted that the petitioner be directed to rejoin the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. It is further clarified that in the event of non-cooperation or failure to join the investigation when called upon, the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as the issues highlighted during the course of hearing, and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation and has extended full cooperation, and that custodial interrogation is not required as of now, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim order dated 03.04.2025 is hereby made absolute. The petition is, thus, allowed. 6. However, the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023). RASHMI 2025.05.21 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18087-2025 4 It is further clarified that in the event the petitioner fails to join or rejoin the investigation despite service of due notice by the Investigating Officer, it shall be open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he do not possess any passport. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court. 7. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE May 21, 2025 rashmi Whether Speaking/Reasoned:YES/NO Whether Reportable: YES/NO RASHMI 2025.05.21 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document